So, if we don't "protect" it by sending our folks up to keep an eye on it, those dumb Ruskis will let it go all to pieces? Or maybe they'll let folks board who aren't, y'know, the right kind of people? Do folks actually think the US owns the ISS? I mean, yeah, the shuttle took quite a lot of the parts up, but, we certainly didn't build all of it, and we don't even own some of the modules, like, outright do not own them. How does this... but we...

EDIT: Yeah, sorry, I should have waited to post until I has something better than "doesn't contribute" but the tone of "The absence of US crew members at any point would diminish ISS operations to an inoperable state" is jingoist nonsense. Everything doesn't have to be a fight. Sorry, again; I'll watch my tone in the future.

The most frustrating thing about the CCT program, due to the nature of its public-private partnership structure, is that the public doesn't get anything close to the insight we get about the progress and stumbling blocks of traditional NASA programs, and then when the question is put to the commercial providers, they can't say much about the process besides that the hardware won't be the holdup.

ASAP warned NASA years ago that they wouldn't have the capacity to process the CCT certification paperwork in a timely manner. That's about all we know about why this is taking so long.

There may be legitimate problems being worked by the providers, but it's hard to square that with the converging schedules between SpaceX and Boeing. What's the likelihood that both providers are running behind schedule due to technical issues and yet they'll both be ready to launch at about the same time?

Why is it when it's buying seats from a Russian company it's as easy as cutting a check but when it's buying seats from US companies it's a mountain of paperwork that takes months and months to process? Why wasn't commercial crew setup in the same way as the contract with Roscosmos, we cut you a check you get our people to the destination?

On one hand it is a prudent thing to have a backup plan. On the other hand you might not need a backup plan if you didn't keep delaying things. I mean SpaceX test fired the Falcon 9 that will carry Demo-1 more than a month ago with the capsule on top ready to go. Meanwhile the launch date went from late Jan to late Feb to early March. NASA just keeps delaying and delaying and delaying. At this point I think it is risk paralysis.

As some point you just have to light the damn candle and see what happens. If it blows up well that is on SpaceX but give them a chance to succeed or fail.

The most frustrating thing about the CCT program, due to the nature of its public-private partnership structure, is that the public doesn't get anything close to the insight we get about the progress and stumbling blocks of traditional NASA programs, and then when the question is put to the commercial providers, they can't say much about the process besides that the hardware won't be the holdup.

ASAP warned NASA years ago that they wouldn't have the capacity to process the CCT certification paperwork in a timely manner. That's about all we know about why this is taking so long.

There may be legitimate problems being worked by the providers, but it's hard to square that with the converging schedules between SpaceX and Boeing. What's the likelihood that both providers are running behind schedule due to technical issues and yet they'll both be ready to launch at about the same time?

Yeah, I don't get it. Apollo was launching every 3 months in their ramp up. They were only down for 10 months after the Apollo 1 mishap.

I appreciate that the capsule is complicated, but at least in SpaceXs case, there's no wait for a launcher - they have a pile of them in storage. Yes, it would be more expensive to speed up the certification process, and those Soyuz seats aren't that expensive, but I would think there would be some urgency to US independence on this which would warrant an additional expense of x millions of dollars to get these two programs certified.

Why is it when it's buying seats from a Russian company it's as easy as cutting a check but when it's buying seats from US companies it's a mountain of paperwork that takes months and months to process? Why wasn't commercial crew setup in the same way as the contract with Roscosmos, we cut you a check you get our people to the destination?

No problem. Simply fly 130 consecutive missions without a single casualty or damage to the station, and there won't be so much paperwork to fill out.

The most frustrating thing about the CCT program, due to the nature of its public-private partnership structure, is that the public doesn't get anything close to the insight we get about the progress and stumbling blocks of traditional NASA programs, and then when the question is put to the commercial providers, they can't say much about the process besides that the hardware won't be the holdup.

ASAP warned NASA years ago that they wouldn't have the capacity to process the CCT certification paperwork in a timely manner. That's about all we know about why this is taking so long.

There may be legitimate problems being worked by the providers, but it's hard to square that with the converging schedules between SpaceX and Boeing. What's the likelihood that both providers are running behind schedule due to technical issues and yet they'll both be ready to launch at about the same time?

Yeah, I don't get it. Apollo was launching every 3 months in their ramp up. They were only down for 10 months after the Apollo 1 mishap.

I appreciate that the capsule is complicated, but at least in SpaceXs case, there's no wait for a launcher - they have a pile of them in storage. Yes, it would be more expensive to speed up the certification process, and those Soyuz seats aren't that expensive, but I would think there would be some urgency to US independence on this which would warrant an additional expense of x millions of dollars to get these two programs certified.

There seems to be no sense of urgency whatsoever here.

Well the seats are pretty damn expensive. The price is now up to $82M/ea and that was with NASA buying six in a year. I am pretty sure these two seats will be over $100M each. You know the saying four hundred and eighty million here, a hundred million there pretty soon you are talking real money.

My understand is the delays are ... paperwork. The capsule and rocket have already been testfired. It is ready to go. The paperwork and NASA's validation of it isn't. The OIG warned a year ago that NASA would not be able to complete its own certification in time.

Why does NASA even certify private crewed spaceflight? I understand they train the astronauts, but shouldn't we eventually move this to the FAA or DOT? NASA doesn't have the bone structure for regulating commerce. Edit: it appears to be complicated.

It seems that NASA has oversight just because commercial crew launches astronauts. If Joe Civilian was flying on a Falcon9 the FAA rules would apply. It's an interesting double standard but understandable, especially with the potential for damage to NASA investments, i.e. the ISS

Why does NASA even certify private crewed spaceflight? I understand they train the astronauts, but shouldn't we eventually move this to the FAA or DOT? NASA doesn't have the bine structure for regulating commerce.

NASA is the customer. Customer makes the rules.

If you wanted to buy Dragon flights you could impose your own requirements (racing stripes, a pony themed interior, etc). SpaceX can either accept those requirements or say "no sale".

So, if we don't "protect" it by sending our folks up to keep an eye on it, those dumb Ruskis will let it go all to pieces? Or maybe they'll let folks board who aren't, y'know, the right kind of people? Do folks actually think the US owns the ISS? I mean, yeah, the shuttle took quite a lot of the parts up, but, we certainly didn't build all of it, and we don't even own some of the modules, like, outright do not own them. How does this... but we...

EDIT: Yeah, sorry, I should have waited to post until I has something better than "doesn't contribute" but the tone of "The absence of US crew members at any point would diminish ISS operations to an inoperable state" is jingoist nonsense. Everything doesn't have to be a fight. Sorry, again; I'll watch my tone in the future.

There is a certain minimum number of crew needed to operate the station. If there aren't enough people, it don't work.

If the Russians pulled out all their crew members, and just left the US crews we'd have the same problem. Unless you can convince the European and Japanese space agencies to send up more people.

On one hand it is a prudent thing to have a backup plan. On the other hand you might not need a backup plan if you didn't keep delaying things. I mean SpaceX test fired the Falcon 9 that will carry Demo-1 more than a month ago with the capsule on top ready to go. Meanwhile the launch date went from late Jan to late Feb to early March. NASA just keeps delaying and delaying and delaying. At this point I think it is risk paralysis.

As some point you just have to light the damn candle and see what happens. If it blows up well that is on SpaceX but give them a chance to succeed or fail.

Why does NASA even certify private crewed spaceflight? I understand they train the astronauts, but shouldn't we eventually move this to the FAA or DOT? NASA doesn't have the bine structure for regulating commerce.

NASA is the customer. Customer makes the rules.

If you wanted to buy Dragon flights you could impose your own requirements (racing stripes, a pony themed interior, etc). SpaceX can either accept those requirements or say "no sale".

How did you get access to my secret designs for my private space yacht? Feeling exposed here

Once the SLS is ready we will be able to send five astronauts to the space station at a time, at only five times the Roscosmos price per astronaut.* Appropriately, that is always five years in the future.

*Assumes high launch cadence to amortize gravy train over improbable number of launches.

On one hand it is a prudent thing to have a backup plan. On the other hand you might not need a backup plan if you didn't keep delaying things. I mean SpaceX test fired the Falcon 9 that will carry Demo-1 more than a month ago with the capsule on top ready to go. Meanwhile the launch date went from late Jan to late Feb to early March. NASA just keeps delaying and delaying and delaying. At this point I think it is risk paralysis.

As some point you just have to light the damn candle and see what happens. If it blows up well that is on SpaceX but give them a chance to succeed or fail.

I would suspect the last delays are related to the shut down and really the fault of NASA or SpaceX/Boeing. Last time we had a really big shut down the only thing that really proceeded forward without delay was the MAVEN launch, and that was just because it had a narrow launch window. This program doesn't actually have that sort of thing going for it where they can claim it is an emergency.

Honestly at this point, I would think it is very unlikely they're going to need those seats. They'd probably need to find major problems with both SpaceX and Boeing's launchers or capsules. Maybe it isn't worth it for even a small chance of not having the station crewed, but it seems like a big price tag.

Once the SLS is ready we will be able to send five astronauts to the space station at a time, at only five times the Roscosmos price per astronaut.* Appropriately, that is always five years in the future.

*Assumes high launch cadence to amortize gravy train over improbable number of launches.

Why is it when it's buying seats from a Russian company it's as easy as cutting a check but when it's buying seats from US companies it's a mountain of paperwork that takes months and months to process? Why wasn't commercial crew setup in the same way as the contract with Roscosmos, we cut you a check you get our people to the destination?

No problem. Simply fly 130 consecutive missions without a single casualty or damage to the station, and there won't be so much paperwork to fill out.

Yeah, except if you look at it objectively the Russian capability is degrading (rapidly) and SpaceX's record is getting more and more solid. In the last 50 launches how many rockets has SpaceX blown up, Roscosmos?

So, if we don't "protect" it by sending our folks up to keep an eye on it, those dumb Ruskis will let it go all to pieces? Or maybe they'll let folks board who aren't, y'know, the right kind of people? Do folks actually think the US owns the ISS? I mean, yeah, the shuttle took quite a lot of the parts up, but, we certainly didn't build all of it, and we don't even own some of the modules, like, outright do not own them. How does this... but we...

EDIT: Yeah, sorry, I should have waited to post until I has something better than "doesn't contribute" but the tone of "The absence of US crew members at any point would diminish ISS operations to an inoperable state" is jingoist nonsense. Everything doesn't have to be a fight. Sorry, again; I'll watch my tone in the future.

There is a certain minimum number of crew needed to operate the station. If there aren't enough people, it don't work.

If the Russians pulled out all their crew members, and just left the US crews we'd have the same problem. Unless you can convince the European and Japanese space agencies to send up more people.

I believe if the station maintenance activities requires around 2 of the 6 crew's time. Obviously that time is spread between crew members and is much higher when space walks are in progress.

So having 3 crew members significantly limits the amount of science work that can be done.

So, if we don't "protect" it by sending our folks up to keep an eye on it, those dumb Ruskis will let it go all to pieces? Or maybe they'll let folks board who aren't, y'know, the right kind of people? Do folks actually think the US owns the ISS? I mean, yeah, the shuttle took quite a lot of the parts up, but, we certainly didn't build all of it, and we don't even own some of the modules, like, outright do not own them. How does this... but we...

EDIT: Yeah, sorry, I should have waited to post until I has something better than "doesn't contribute" but the tone of "The absence of US crew members at any point would diminish ISS operations to an inoperable state" is jingoist nonsense. Everything doesn't have to be a fight. Sorry, again; I'll watch my tone in the future.

There is a certain minimum number of crew needed to operate the station. If there aren't enough people, it don't work.

If the Russians pulled out all their crew members, and just left the US crews we'd have the same problem. Unless you can convince the European and Japanese space agencies to send up more people.

I believe if the station maintenance activities requires around 2 of the 6 crew's time. Obviously that time is spread between crew members and is much higher when space walks are in progress.

So having 3 crew members significantly limits the amount of science work that can be done.

Why is it when it's buying seats from a Russian company it's as easy as cutting a check but when it's buying seats from US companies it's a mountain of paperwork that takes months and months to process? Why wasn't commercial crew setup in the same way as the contract with Roscosmos, we cut you a check you get our people to the destination?

No problem. Simply fly 130 consecutive missions without a single casualty or damage to the station, and there won't be so much paperwork to fill out.

Yeah, except if you look at it objectively the Russian capability is degrading (rapidly) and SpaceX's record is getting more and more solid. In the last 50 launches how many rockets has SpaceX blown up, Roscosmos?

I'm sure that NASA has probably had meetings where they've discussed the safety concerns with the recent QC problems with the Russian launchers. I'm guessing for now they probably don't think the risks are high enough to warrant trying to expedite SpaceX and Boeing's testing.

Why is it when it's buying seats from a Russian company it's as easy as cutting a check but when it's buying seats from US companies it's a mountain of paperwork that takes months and months to process? Why wasn't commercial crew setup in the same way as the contract with Roscosmos, we cut you a check you get our people to the destination?

FFS

One of those has been launching people for decades.The other(s) have not launched anyone yet.

Why is it when it's buying seats from a Russian company it's as easy as cutting a check but when it's buying seats from US companies it's a mountain of paperwork that takes months and months to process? Why wasn't commercial crew setup in the same way as the contract with Roscosmos, we cut you a check you get our people to the destination?

No problem. Simply fly 130 consecutive missions without a single casualty or damage to the station, and there won't be so much paperwork to fill out.

Yeah, except if you look at it objectively the Russian capability is degrading (rapidly) and SpaceX's record is getting more and more solid. In the last 50 launches how many rockets has SpaceX blown up, Roscosmos?

I'm sure that NASA has probably had meetings where they've discussed the safety concerns with the recent QC problems with the Russian launchers. I'm guessing for now they probably don't think the risks are high enough to warrant trying to expedite SpaceX and Boeing's testing.

It's not a matter of 'expediting' testing. Space X at the Cape and ready to go. It's NASA paperwork holding up a launch that has already been delayed a few times.

So, if we don't "protect" it by sending our folks up to keep an eye on it, those dumb Ruskis will let it go all to pieces? Or maybe they'll let folks board who aren't, y'know, the right kind of people? Do folks actually think the US owns the ISS? I mean, yeah, the shuttle took quite a lot of the parts up, but, we certainly didn't build all of it, and we don't even own some of the modules, like, outright do not own them. How does this... but we...

EDIT: Yeah, sorry, I should have waited to post until I has something better than "doesn't contribute" but the tone of "The absence of US crew members at any point would diminish ISS operations to an inoperable state" is jingoist nonsense. Everything doesn't have to be a fight. Sorry, again; I'll watch my tone in the future.

There is a certain minimum number of crew needed to operate the station. If there aren't enough people, it don't work.

If the Russians pulled out all their crew members, and just left the US crews we'd have the same problem. Unless you can convince the European and Japanese space agencies to send up more people.

I believe if the station maintenance activities requires around 2 of the 6 crew's time. Obviously that time is spread between crew members and is much higher when space walks are in progress.

So having 3 crew members significantly limits the amount of science work that can be done.

Russia has already reduced their crew to two cosmonauts.

The previous expedition had six crew members, because we replaced one Russians with another person. The next expedition will have six crew members total, two of which are Russian.

I don't believe the ISS actually went down to five people when the Russians dropped their crew numbers down to 2. Instead they just sold more seats.

So, if we don't "protect" it by sending our folks up to keep an eye on it, those dumb Ruskis will let it go all to pieces? Or maybe they'll let folks board who aren't, y'know, the right kind of people? Do folks actually think the US owns the ISS? I mean, yeah, the shuttle took quite a lot of the parts up, but, we certainly didn't build all of it, and we don't even own some of the modules, like, outright do not own them. How does this... but we...

EDIT: Yeah, sorry, I should have waited to post until I has something better than "doesn't contribute" but the tone of "The absence of US crew members at any point would diminish ISS operations to an inoperable state" is jingoist nonsense. Everything doesn't have to be a fight. Sorry, again; I'll watch my tone in the future.

There is a certain minimum number of crew needed to operate the station. If there aren't enough people, it don't work.

If the Russians pulled out all their crew members, and just left the US crews we'd have the same problem. Unless you can convince the European and Japanese space agencies to send up more people.

I believe if the station maintenance activities requires around 2 of the 6 crew's time. Obviously that time is spread between crew members and is much higher when space walks are in progress.

So having 3 crew members significantly limits the amount of science work that can be done.

Russia has already reduced their crew to two cosmonauts.

The previous expedition had six crew members, because we replaced one Russians with another person. The next expedition will have six crew members total, two of which are Russian.

I don't believe the ISS actually went down to five people when the Russians dropped their crew numbers down to 2. Instead they just sold more seats.

right but we're talking about in the future if the current expedition returned home and the Americans weren't capable of launching anyone or buying any seats that would leave only two people on the station.

This was a fun experiment, but there's no way that NASA is getting away with issuing fixed-cost contracts for the development of crewed space vehicles ever again. They blew it. Any contractor in their right mind is going to insist on a cost-plus contract, because why should they put themselves in the position where they are bleeding cash waiting for a certification process which could drag out for months and months with no end in sight?